kengs333

But the use of the term "caucasoid" was viewed by many as being problematic as it introduced a racial notion of identity that was not legitimate, and was based on antiquated concepts of race. Of course the situation isn't really helped all that much by the fact that the local Indians claim him as one of their own and proper testing couldn't be conducted, and still hasn't as far as I can determine.

The point is that you are using outdated classifications of race which supposes that "whites" are all related, ie. are "caucasoid," when really the basis for determining relationships between groups of people is based on genetic markers. If Kennewick Man is in fact related to the Ainu, the fact that "the shape of his skull" is "caucasoid" is irrelevant, since he would genetically be most closely related to the Japanese. http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/caucasoid Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? (page 227)

No, the Ainu were not caucasoids--there were theories and debates as to whether or not they were Caucasoid of Mongoloid, but genetic testing has shown that despite their appearances they have no genetic connection to Europe, that they were most closely linked to the Japanese.

I'm not sure that the theory is "radical". The DNA testing of Indians revealed that the Ojibway have a genetic marker that links them with what is now southern Europe, and the theory is that migrated to North America not via "open arctic water" but along ice that covered much of the North Atlantic. This would not be inconsistant with long distance movements that the Inuit have been known to undertake in more recent times. Some Indians may be decended from peoples who at some point were situated in southern Europe, but that hardly makes them "European". I suspect that the OP has the same motive as "Archangel" and may in fact be the same person. I'm thinking that someone at Stormfront wouldn't even be this stupid seeing that they are suggesting is that non-whites were the first Europeans; not to mention the fact that posting it on a forum such as this would immediately discredit their assertions.

Needless to say, not every member of the Canadian Forces were responsible for what happened, just as not every member of Six Nations is responsible for what some of its members do. And all one has to do is do is search the archives of some of the local newspapers to see some of the horrific things members of Six Nations have done recently. There have been quite a few charges of attempted murder recently, and according to stats provided by Six Nations police services, the rate of all forms of assault is above the provincial average. Anyone who works in the field of family violence will tell you that native women experience considerably higher rates of domestic violence than the average Canadian. This is something you must be aware of, so your constant bleeting about one or two isolated incidents (if they even occured) is sheer nonsense.

Pretty sad that you have to twist it to make it seem like I would "wish" it to happen to a child, any child. Yeah, I guess I could string together a whole line of words to negatively characterize your personality, too--including the "ubiquitous" ignorant/ignorance. Calling someone who doesn't agree with you "ignorant" has to be the most tired and useless debating tactic there is. And considering the fact that you haven't exactly demonstrated that your all that wise and learned, it doesn't exactly serve as much of an insult, either. Well, whatever you decide to call me, I've seen what becomes of people who submit to sin and temptation, people who succumb to pressures of people like you to lower themselves to a baser level for fear of having convictions that make them lead sober, decent and productive lives.

So what, though? All of these politicians can crawl back to lucrative jobs. Politicians become politicians because they like the status and distinction, and so getting booted out of office is little more than a shot to the ego. If they eventually make a deal with Six Nations, then a couple decades from now when they write their books or are interviewed about the issue they can wax poetic about the political and historical importance of supposedly "doing the right thing" even if it pissed off a lot of voters. Not the first time something like this has happened. In the end, each of us who only participates in the process by simply voting every few years, is really worthless and are never given much consideration when these deals are being made.

That's not why they are exempted. Six Nations is on Canadian territory, members of Six Nations receive benefits from both the federal and provincial governments, they use Canadian currency; sometimes they're even subject to Canadian laws, and they certainly don't mind relying on Canadian services when it benefits them.

Yeah, that's right, I'm "prone to sweeping generalizations" because nothing that I've heard or read ever has suggested that Indians of any kind have been apologetic about the atrocities that their ancestors committed. What a brilliant statement. People like you never fail to amaze me. Show me a book or any form of media in which any Indian group collectively apologizes for anything that their ancestor did.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDi...Daniel%20Pearce

"You have proven over and over again, [sic] don't" want to admit or acknowledge "what is going on at Six Nations."

There was a study not long ago that is supposed to have used a testing method that objectively determines whether or not people show preferential treatment to certain groups. It showed that both blacks and whites were about equal in showing preference to their own skin colour; the difference was that whites tended to be apologetic for being this way, while blacks tended to be proud of the fact that they behaved this way.

Isn't that what Indians do? I've never seen a discussion about restoring Indian culture that included mention of some of the more gruesome burial and religious practices that Indians used to practices, not to mention some of the more brutal things that they are alleged to have done on a routine basis. Even suggest such a thing as holding Indians responsible for atrocities that that committed would be considered racist. So why can't Europeans have the same luxury of adhering to an idealized concept of their history? Whatever the case, I'm inclined to think that the OP is in fact a current member of this forum, one who has an obsession with "white nationalism"--hence its use in the post...

Most of the "problems" that you people are complaining about are the result of the actions of Joseph Brant, not the Canadian government. If the Canadian government didn't step in and stop land speculation and force the Six Nations to start conducting land transactions legally, there would be no reserve at all.

Yeah, a "$billion business" for whom. We all know what's going on at Six Nations.

So what ever happened to "protecting Mother Earth"? Or is that just more double-talk for the benefit of "whites"? As is the case whenever "whites" develop some sort of project, the question always remains whether or not something more eco-friendly can be made of the land instead. I'm not familiar with the parcel of land so I don't know how practicable that would be, but why not just restore the land's ecosystem instead? Why a multi-hundred-million dollar power plant?

Whatever "businesses" means... Aren't there somewhere in the range of 300 "smoke shops" on or around Six Nations?

You need proof that Europeans came to the Americas, conquered and settled it?

So you're admitting that you can't live up to that ideal? What does the "Great Law" say about flaming, trolling, posting under multiple user names, returning to a message board from which one has been banned, fabricating history, calling people "parasites," generally being an obnoxious individual about a cause that is not theirs????

No need to admit that you were wrong about "man-boy love" supposedly not being part of the gay lifestyle. So you think that it still isn't going on today, do you? Well, it can easily be proven that it does, but I'm not inclined to do the research because I have better things to do than subject myself to that kind of filth. Who knows what it goes by nowadays? "Inter-age relationships"? "Sexual mentorships"? "Different generation encounters"? Just because the activity is masked by low-key titles, doesn't mean that it still doesn't occur. Maybe one day one of your children will become ensnared in such a relationship, and you'll finally see it for what it is, regardless of what it's called.

Wasn't part of the reason for the protests around Caledonia to STOP development and preserve greenspaces? And now there is a proposal for a new power plant in Brantford on native-owned land, a project which would directly involve Six Nations. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDi...th=Susan+Gamble

Big deal. First you about being "advanced" in the present tense, and now you're supporting it with a theory that agriculture developments in the Old and New World were "nearly concurrent". Advanced means socially, politically, technologically--every aspect of civilization. And history clearly demonstrates that European civilization was more advanced at the time of first contact, which is why Europeans conquered the Indians and settled the continent. It's as simple as that.

Her arguments usually revolve around the Iroquois/Six Nations, and in her posts she takes of "most" Indian societies which suggests that she's referring to all of the groups of Indians that all the Europeans came into contact with.

Some denominations emphasize the fact that "pride" is a sin. One really shouldn't "take pride" in being Christian because being a follower of Christ and abiding by God's Will is simply the way it should be. Pride is something that non-Christians attribute to worldly things, and there's no better example of this than the concept of "gay pride".

I don't recall being taught that the British won the American Revolution, rather that the Loyalists came to Canada and settled this fine land and made it prosperous after the Americans prevailed. I also don't recall that I was ever tought that during the War of 1812 "brought [the Americans] to their knees," rather that the outcome was indecisive, essentially ending in a draw because neither side lost territory. On the other hand, the role of the Brant and the Iroquois during the Revolution, men like Tecumseh during the War of 1812 was hardly something that has been overlooked; their stories have been told--often in an overidealized/romanticized manner--from the very beginning. I wouldn't call their participation "pivotal" since the British did not previal; Indians, incidently, were used to raid isolated farms and settlements and eliminate the locals. Incidently, "Asians and others" didn't "[fight] along side the British" unless some of the regiments picked up southeast Asians while they were stationed in India or thereabouts. The Buffalo Soldiers" were Post American Civil War (1861-1865) black United States army troopers who served on the American frontier during the Plains Wars, and were used to combat Indians that were not submitting to the American government. They did a pretty good job of it, too, and earned a fine reputation.